Manu Khanna Tr.Mother vs V.P.Sharma & Anr

Manu Khanna (Minor) through his ......... Appellant mother Dr. Poonam Khanna

Vs.

V. P. Sharma & Anr. ...... Respondents

O R D E R

Leave granted. Heard the parties.

2. The appellant is the minor son of first respondent and

Dr. Poonam Khanna. He is represented by his mother. While

the appellant's mother claims that the appellant is

mentally challenged, the respondent denies it. The

appellant filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure for maintenance. In the said

proceedings, the learned Magistrate by his order dated

26.6.2006 directed the first respondent to pay interim

maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the appellant. 2

3. The appellant challenged the order of the learned

Magistrate by filing a Criminal Revision Petition before

the High Court. The appellant contended that the sum of

Rs.5,000/- per month was inadequate and the interim

maintenance should be higher. A learned Single Judge of the

High Court by the impugned order dated 9.7.2007 considered

the matter in detail and found no reason to interfere with

the order of the learned Magistrate fixing Rs.5,000/- per

month as interim maintenance. He directed that the main

petition itself should be proceeded with and disposed of by

the learned Magistrate expeditiously, preferably within

four months from that date. By subsequent order dated

16.11.2007, the time for disposal was extended upto

31.1.2008. The orders of the High Court are challenged by

the appellant.

4. The appellant's mother, who appeared in person,

submitted that the quantum of interim maintenance is

inadequate both from the point of view of the need of the

appellant and the income of the respondent. On the other

hand, the respondent contended that the determination of

Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance was proper and

adequate. But nevertheless, he offered to pay Rs.7,500/- 3

per month subject to the final decision in the pending

proceedings, to put an end to the issue. On the facts and

circumstances, we are of the view that the said payment

will be adequate and appropriate as interim maintenance.

5. The respondent submitted that the issue of visitation

right so as to enable him to spend time with his son, is

pending and that issue may be linked and considered with

this issue. The appellant's mother contended that no such

issue is pending. It is unnecessary to examine that

question as that is not the subject matter of this appeal.

6. Though the order of the High Court was passed more

than one year and five months ago, it is stated that the

main matter is still pending before the learned Magistrate.

If the parties had co-operated with the learned Magistrate,

as directed by the High Court, the main matter itself would

have been over by now. During arguments, the mother of the

appellant (representing the appellant) and the father of

the appellant displayed considerable acrimony towards each

other and put forth contentions which are unnecessary to

decide a simple interim maintenance issue. They also tend

to bring in extraneous issues. The learned Magistrate shall

deal with any request for adjournment sternly and restrict 4

the parties strictly to the issue at hand, to ensure that

the main case is completed at least by 31.3.2009.

7. We therefore dispose of this appeal by increasing the

interim maintenance to Rs.7,500/- per month from 1.12.2008

till final decision in the pending proceedings before the

learned Magistrate. Both the parties shall extend full co-

operation for the early disposal. It is made clear that the

amount determined is purely as an interim measure and the

learned Magistrate will decide the main maintenance

petition without being influenced by any observation made

by the High Court or this Court on the issue of the interim

maintenance.

__________________J.

(R. V. Raveendran)

New Delhi; ___________________J. December 5, 2008. (D. K. Jain)